Cycling UK Forum

Reply to this topic for general comments about this page on the main CTC site: Financial issues, Members funds etc.

Please start a new thread, with a suitable subject, for particularly complicated or controversial discussions relating to this page.

If this thread gets excessively long, or new topics emerge within the discussion, the moderators may also split this thread into separate topics.

With the government squeeze going to bite any more, all parties are saying about protecting front line services.
Is there going to be any money or a severe cut from the govt.. for the types of activities the Trust is undertaking. If this part of the Trust funding dries, up can the Trust get out of the contracts that have already been undertaken.
Is it possible the membership subs will have to be used to make up any shortfall from govt cuts.

Edwards wrote:With the government squeeze going to bite any more, all parties are saying about protecting front line services.
Is there going to be any money or a severe cut from the govt.. for the types of activities the Trust is undertaking. If this part of the Trust funding dries, up can the Trust get out of the contracts that have already been undertaken.
Is it possible the membership subs will have to be used to make up any shortfall from govt cuts.

It is clear that the government funding for cycling projects is discretionary funding. You can bet that it will disappear in the next Comprehensive Spending Review round.

There is every reason to believe that the Trust will face significant shortfalls in income in the short to medium term. Council and the Trustees have been warned of this but action seems to be slow to happen.

Regulator wrote:There is every reason to believe that the Trust will face significant shortfalls in income in the short to medium term. Council and the Trustees have been warned of this but action seems to be slow to happen.

Has Council / Management done any contingency planning ( yet ) ?

Graham wrote:Has Council / Management done any contingency planning ( yet ) ?

Yes - the budgets out to 2012 that have been drawn up have all been done so on the basis that present contracts continue but no new contracts are taken on. We therefore know the shortfall we face if we don't secure more contracts, and decisions can be made to reduce costs accordingly if new contracts don't emerge to fill the gap.

Also, contract pipelines are drawn up and provided to Council members so that they have an idea of what contracts are available for bidding.

Edwards wrote:If this part of the Trust funding dries, up can the Trust get out of the contracts that have already been undertaken.

We wouldn't have any reason for exiting from contracts we are already delivering, as they are bringing in income. It's not that they'll suddenly become loss-making if wider government funding is reduced, the contract originator still has an obligation to deliver the funding they committed to.

I'm not sure that that confidence ties in with recent experience. I don't know the ins and outs so I hope somebody will shoot me down if I'm wrong (and I hope I am wrong.)

Within the last couple of years there was a lot of talk about zillions of £££ for cycle training (Bikeability?) and at one point I got the impression that the CTC had landed the big one. Then it turned out they (or rather we) hadn't and so the structure which had been put in place was redundant. There's a rather ghostly section of this forum which is a bit of a memorial.

Nothing to do with charity status, of course, but everything to do with expectations of external funding which do not materialise.

Standing by to be shot down

simonconnell wrote:We wouldn't have any reason for exiting from contracts we are already delivering, as they are bringing in income

Are you absolutely certain the Government have not got a clause written in the contract that means they can get out of paying or delay payment for a very long time. Is it not possible they will take a very careful look at every part of the contract making sure every i is dotted and t crossed to get out of making the full payment. Penalty clause,s are usually added these days.

I suppose it all depends how much you trust the government.

Edwards wrote:... I suppose it all depends how much you trust the government.

And the next one.

Can I ask here about the official CTC page that this topic is linked to?

The page says:

[quote]As the Trust has grown and its contracts and grants make an increasing contribution to overheads, the Club has been able to reduce the amount donated each year.[quote]

And yet the table has these figures for the donations from Club to Trust each year:

2005/06 = £375,000
2006/07 = £606,000 (62% increase)
2007/08 = £758,000 (25% increase versus previous year, 102% increase since 2005/06)
2008/09 = £453,000 (40% decrease versus previous year, 20% increase since 2005/06)

I don't see how this indicates that "the Club has been able to reduce the amount donated each year", although the massive reduction in donation for 2008/09 looks very welcome: did the Trust have a massive increase in profits, or do significantly less work, that year?

Edwards wrote:

simonconnell wrote:We wouldn't have any reason for exiting from contracts we are already delivering, as they are bringing in income

Are you absolutely certain the Government have not got a clause written in the contract that means they can get out of paying or delay payment for a very long time. Is it not possible they will take a very careful look at every part of the contract making sure every i is dotted and t crossed to get out of making the full payment. Penalty clause,s are usually added these days.

I suppose it all depends how much you trust the government.

The contracts will have 'get out' clauses in favour of the Government. These are standard in all government contracts. They normally allow the Government to withdraw funding (often with no notice) if spending priorities change.

I can see that happening, change of government or not, as public spending is squeezed as a result of the need to reduce the burgeoning deficit. I currently work in the NHS and we are already facing 30% cuts in spending.

Some questions you may want to ask your local councillor if s/he e-mails you and assures you everything is OK with the CTC accounts and accounting system, and that you should vote for the charitable option.

In the 2008/9 accounts, there are payments totalling £863,599 from the Club to the Trust. An explanation of this sum was given at the Council meeting on 23 January 2010. The Chair of the Management Committee explained that, of the £860,000 (rounded down for ease):

• £407,000 was for ‘services’ supplied by the Trust to the Club
• £453,000 was a ‘subvention*’ from the Club to the Trust

You might want to ask your Councillor to explain (and itemise):

1. what ‘services’ were provided for the sum of £407,000 and what each of those services cost; and,

2. why the Club is giving the Trust a ‘subvention’ (a grant of financial aid) of £453,000? What is it for and why is it necessary, given the assertion in the recent e-mails that the Trust is making money on its contracts?

Another assertion made in several of the e-mails is that the Trust has ‘saved the Club £430,000’. Can your Councillor is explain what these ‘savings’ actually are and how the figure of £430,000 is reached?

Those who are assuring you that everything is OK and the Trust isn't losing money, or who are suggesting that some councillors and ex-councillors are acting maliciously, must surely be able to answer these questions as they relate to substantial sums of money and go to the heart of the concerns people are expressing over the financial situation.

If they're saying everything is OK then they should be able to give coherent and detailed answers to these questions.

*(A ‘subvention’ is defined as: ‘(1) Provision of help, aid, or support. (2) An endowment or a subsidy, as that given by a government to an institution for research; a grant of financial aid.’)

Regulator wrote:In the 2008/9 accounts, there are payments totalling £863,599 from the Club to the Trust.

Is there a link to the 2008/9 accounts anywhere, or have they just been 'run by' council?
(The number seems to conflict with the claims in Table 2 on the website.)

there's a thread entitled 'how much did the club........' further down the board

squeaker wrote:

Regulator wrote:In the 2008/9 accounts, there are payments totalling £863,599 from the Club to the Trust.

Is there a link to the 2008/9 accounts anywhere, or have they just been 'run by' council?
(The number seems to conflict with the claims in Table 2 on the website.)

The claims in table 2 seem to be part of this garbled and bizarre argument that 'the Trust is saving the Club money'.

Basically the Trust is doing some work that wouldn't be done by the Club and then trying to claim that the costs of that work are 'savings' to the Club. That is what Table 2 is supposed to reflect I think...